The Mandate Represents What’s Wrong With Democrats

Weekly Standard Blog ^ | Jun 27, 2012 | JAY COST

[DoughtyOne]

Here's a hypothetical I have used in the past.

Say Obama raised every-ones taxes by $800. But then he in the same bill it offered/passed a tax credit for those that have approved insurance, and that tax credit was the same $800, like the tax credit I got for insulation. So if you don't buy the proper insurance then you have to pay an additional $800 you didn't before the law, just like now except with real penalties. Constitutional? You see the problem?

I don't see either one being Constitutional.   I don't think the federal government should be in the business of giving tax credits.  That's a very sticky wicket, because most people believe in the mortgage interest tax credit.  Call it a Chevy Volt tax credit, and ouch!  People get it.  I do think the mortgage interst rate tax credit is beneficial to the economy, but open that door and all of a sudden you've got real problems.  Insullation, Chevy Volt...

I don't belive in the individual mandate.  I don't believe in the tax/fine stance either, if you don't observe the mandate.

This bill was designed to get employers to drop coverage and pay the small fine to kill off the employer insurance. The weak mandate was a side issue blown out of proportion.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the employer insurance provision here.  I would only say that it should have been addressed in the same manner the individual mandate was.

I do not think a 'tax decision' go-around, that is extemely flawed, justifies as proof that the individual mandate was something that should not have been challenged.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” I think that Roberts didn’t want to be seen as striking down major legislation capriciously, so he bent over backwards to look for a way—any way—to uphold it without betraying his principles..”

If that was his intention, he failed in epic proportions.
The whole damn thing is unconstitutional. Kennedy sees this, and Roberts doesn’t ?

[sickoflibs]

RE :”By ruling that the penalty is a tax, Congress can repeal it though the budget reconciliation (ie BR) process, which is not subject to a filibuster, and the rest of the provisions would then be repealed through normal legislation that the Democrats would not dare to filibuster so as not to condemn insurance companies to certain bankruptcy.”

I been making similar points today too. The bill can really be crippled by BR with 50+VP in the Senate if Republicans win big in November both Houses and WH. That is the trick Pelosi and Reid used to get it to Obama’s desk in 2010, BR.

And the overturning of the Medicaid mandates is an important victory, Republicans blinded themselves with the obsession with the lame personal mandate, so few of them appreciate this.

Democrats have to play this decision up to protect Obama, I refuse to join them.

[Impy]

Blackmail, idiocy and going over to the Dark Side are not the only explanations for Roberts’s opinion. I think that Roberts didn't want to be seen as striking down major legislation capriciously, so he bent over backwards to look for a way—any way—to uphold it without betraying his principles, and he fooled himself into thinking that the penalty for not complying with the mandate was really a tax, and that the mandate was really an incentive

I'm no law-talking guy and Roberts is way smarter than me but that still falls under "idiocy" in my book. Rank idiocy.

How about my "Oral Roberts" theory? Could he be in love with Barack Obama? Secret evenings spent watching "Doctor Zhivago" and snorting Colombian gold?

That makes about as much sense as anything else.

The unlikely notion that he conspired with the GOP to uphold it in the belief that making the election a referendum on Osamacare would be in our advantage is the only remotely "positive" motivation I can come up with. As for blackmail I'd need a shred of proof first before seriously entertaining that.

Perhaps he's acquired a taste for liberal media praise. He wouldn't be the first.

The simplest, saddest, and perhaps most likely explanation is he just was not as conservative as we thought. Fool's gold. Ann Coulter said he was another Souter. Souter is a solid liberal and Roberts clearly isn't that but it appears she and the few others not in love with the choice may have been on the right track.

[sickoflibs]

You’re still not buying the horse’s head theory?

[Impy]

Is there anything more than conjecture? It’s far more likely he’s just a fool.

Sure it’s possible but I think it’s barley more likely than my gay lovers idea (and less likely than outright bribery, people like money).

And frankly I’d rather believe that than believe the supposedly conservative CJ would succumb to threats or blackmail.

[BillyBoy]

>> The simplest, saddest, and perhaps most likely explanation is he just was not as conservative as we thought. Fool's gold. <<

That's probably the most likely explanation, but the reason why this one is so shocking is Roberts has been reliable vote in the six years since his appointment and never sided with the liberal judges on a major decision until now. When I learned he was on Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor's side while the "not-so-conservative" Kennedy issued a scathing dissent wanting the law to be struct down in its entirety, it was one of those "WTF?!" moments in politics. I'd put it up there with news items like "Bob Barr becomes ACLU consultant and backs Al Gore's global warming scheme" and "Donald Trump hailed by birthers as true conservative tea party candidate for President", etc. Stuff you never saw coming and would have thought possible 'til it happens.

We really won't know if this decision is a one-time deviation from his normal rulings or the start of a larger trend until the court starts hearing new cases in October. If it's a best case scenario and Roberts continues to vote with the good guys regularly during the next session, we're left with the Obamacare decision being for reasons other than "not as conservative as we thought"

>> Ann Coulter said he was another Souter. Souter is a solid liberal and Roberts clearly isn't that but it appears she and the few others not in love with the choice may have been on the right track. <<

I agree that the "another Souter" scare tactic line Coulter used is extremely unlikely. If Roberts goes wobbly on us and occasionally sides with the 4 liberal justices, we'd perhaps have "another O'Connor". Which is frustrating and disappointing because he was originally named to replace O'Connor and was supposed to move the court to the right.

If Roberts ends veering way to the left and becoming an important player in promoting the agenda of the court's liberal bloc, then he would be "another Souter" and this country is screwed even IF Obama is defeated and we win both houses in November. In any election outcome, the RATs would nevertheless have a majority on the court with its current makeup and be able to destroy not only America but western civilization by having the Roberts court declare gay "marriage" to a nationwide "right" and other crazy new liberal precedents. Since Roberts is CJ, we'd have an Earl Warren court redux. Fortunately I think there's only about a 5% chance of such a scenario occurring. Besides, I'd hate to think Ann Coulter was 100% right about Roberts and I was 100% wrong. ;-p

>> How about my "Oral Roberts" theory? Could he be in love with Barack Obama? Secret evenings spent watching "Doctor Zhivago" and snorting Colombian gold? That makes about as much sense as anything else. The unlikely notion that he conspired with the GOP to uphold it in the belief that making the election a referendum on Osamacare would be in our advantage is the only remotely "positive" motivation I can come up with. As for blackmail I'd need a shred of proof first before seriously entertaining that. Perhaps he's acquired a taste for liberal media praise. He wouldn't be the first. <<

All plausible explanations for his bizarre ruling on Obamacare (assuming it's not because he's a squishy conservative). I agree the "blackmail" theory is unlikely, too.

>> None of this redeems Obama-care from being a terrible destructive bill. <<

Yes, and I also agree this is a terrible ruling and ranks up there with Roe v. Wade (which happened before my time) and Kelso vs. New London (prior to the Obamacare ruiling, the 2005 ruling was the worst SCOTUS ruling in history). Conservatives trying to put a positive spin on this and claiming there's a silver lining (Roberts limited the Commerce clause, Roberts guaranteed the GOP will win in November, Roberts forced them to call it a tax, etc.) are kidding themselves. The conservative pundits -- Rush, Levin, Savage, etc. are right to say the prospects are dismal now. We're about to be fully enslaved by the government in 2014 and the only SLIM possibility of stopping that now is by winning BOTH houses of Congress AND the Presidency in November 2012, and praying that Boehner, McConnell, AND Romney all do the "right thing" and stick to their campaign promises. I'm not giving up hope, but let's face it, the odds are against us.

>> I'm no law-talking guy and Roberts is way smarter than me but that still falls under "idiocy" in my book. Rank idiocy. <<

Someone posted a banner on Thursday that said "Brace yourselves: Everyone on the Internet is about to become a constitutional scholar" and that sums it up nicely. I have seen a lot of ridiculous knee-jerk reactions. Liberals had a field day poking fun at the conservatives who are threatening to move to Canada (which of course, has even worse socialized medicine) because of Obamacare, and an even dumber reaction is the conservatives saying Roberts "needs to be impeached for this" (which of course, means Obama would name his replacement if the Senate convicted Roberts) There are too many useful idiots on our side who don't think things through. I know the left is dumb and get their "facts" about what Sarah Palin "said" from SNL, but our side is giving them free ammo when conservatives know the facts but forget them because they want to post an angry rant like "IMPEACH ROBERTS!"

[sickoflibs]

RE :” I know the left is dumb and get their “facts” about what Sarah Palin “said” from SNL, but our side is giving them free ammo when conservatives know the facts but forget them because they want to post an angry rant like “IMPEACH ROBERTS!”

Dems spent two years ranting about how Roberts court is destroying the country ( Citizen's United especially) and now Republicans are doing it over this decision. Meanwhile now Dems are cheering the SCOTUS seal of approval and Obama's big win.

There will be other decisions coming that infuriate the Dems and the roles will flip back again. Lose one and lets act like Dems and have a hissy fit.

So we want to prevent anymore Roberts from getting on the court?? Then defeat Romney. That will do it,

Yawn...

[sickoflibs]

RE:” Ann Coulter said he was another Souter. Souter is a solid liberal and Roberts clearly isn't that but it appears she and the few others not in love with the choice may have been on the right track. <<
,,,,,
I agree that the “another Souter” scare tactic line Coulter used is extremely unlikely. If Roberts goes wobbly on us and occasionally sides with the 4 liberal justices, we'd perhaps have “another O'Connor”. Which is frustrating and disappointing because he was originally named to replace O'Connor and was supposed to move the court to the right.”

Didn't Coulter go ga-ga over Romney in the primary? Nuff said.

[BillyBoy]

>> Didn't Coulter go ga-ga over Romney in the primary? <<

Which is why her former cheerleaders on FR have laid low instead of coming on these threads to gloat "Ann was right!" about Roberts.

(The ironic thing, their hero endorsed Romney in 2008, and they ignored it at the time and pretended she supported "Duncan Hunter". They then acted shocked when she endorsed Romney AGAIN in 2012 and helped him win the primary. I think her support of GOProud might have been the final straw)

[sickoflibs]

RE :”>> Didn't Coulter go ga-ga over Romney in the primary? <<
....
Which is why her former cheerleaders on FR have laid low instead of coming on these threads to gloat “Ann was right!” about Roberts.”

After shilling liberal Romney in the primary over all the others her now going back to playing the uber-absolute values conservative is not impressing me.

I loved Ann when she first showed up late Clinton term and read a number of her books but her shilling for GWB made me suspicious of her as the years went on. Now this Romney thing taints everything she says.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” There are too many useful idiots on our side who don’t think things through”

Otherwise intelligent FReepers got so angry, they didn’t think straight. My heart goes out to them

[stephenjohnbanker]

” (The ironic thing, their hero endorsed Romney in 2008, and they ignored it at the time and pretended she supported “Duncan Hunter”. They then acted shocked when she endorsed Romney AGAIN in 2012 and helped him win the primary. I think her support of GOProud might have been the final straw) “

Yeah....that will about do it : )

[GOPsterinMA]

” There are too many useful idiots on our side who don’t think things through

Otherwise intelligent FReepers got so angry, they didn’t think straight. My heart goes out to them”

I've spoken many times, both openly and privately, about the “I-can-only-think-about-lunch” mentality of failure that is prevalent amongst some folks, mostly on the right. Forward thinking, goal-driven strategy is where the leftists excel over the right.

It took ~70 years, but the leftists haven't come as far as they have by accident; while the other side (us) points the clicker at the TV looking for Lawrence Welk.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” I’ve spoken many times, both openly and privately, about the “I-can-only-think-about-lunch” mentality of failure that is prevalent amongst some folks, mostly on the right. Forward thinking, goal-driven strategy is where the leftists excel over the right.

It took ~70 years, but the leftists haven’t come as far as they have by accident; while the other side (us) points the clicker at the TV looking for Lawrence Welk. “

We have the most whorish, useless, clueless leaders in D.C., that sometimes I wonder if they aren’t on the payroll of the DNC.

One of the problems is that good conservatives look upon government in general, and politic in particular as a “necessary evil” while the left looks at it as a religion.
Also, most good conservatives are successful in their lives, and their businesses, and would never “lowe themselves” to going into politics full time.....So? By and large, our politicians are the pond scum, or talentless, unimaginative hacks like Boehner.

[GOPsterinMA]

“We have the most whorish, useless, clueless leaders in D.C., that sometimes I wonder if they aren’t on the payroll of the DNC.”

“..talentless, unimaginative hacks...”

Damn! You’re on fire!!!

[sickoflibs]

RE :”One of the problems is that good conservatives look upon government in general, and politic in particular as a “necessary evil” while the left looks at it as a religion”

Dems have coopted Republicans claim that any tax cut pays for itself (except FICA apparently) with the claim that single payer free health care pays for itself, or even that Obmamacare freebees pay for themselves. How you ask?

Well once all the insured start getting free medical care, they will stop getting sick, and will need less medical care. See?? its free. This should work with illegals too. This must be why they claim medicare is running surpluses now.

With claims like this you never know how much of their BS they actually believe.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Well once all the insured start getting free medical care, they will stop getting sick, and will need less medical care. See?? its free. This should work with illegals too. This must be why they claim medicare is running surpluses now.

With claims like this you never know how much of their BS they actually believe. “

Unless their Stanford-Binet I. Q. is below 80, they are just lying. The left loves to lie, because that is all they do.

[Impy]

So you’ve all heard the reports now, allegedly Roberts was with us (at least on the mandate but perhaps not getting rid of the whole thing) and changed his mind and wouldn’t explain why very well.

KENNEDY spent a month trying to talk him out of it while Roberts tried to work him over to the dark side (Kennedy is a @#$%ing hero now? Surreal)

Sounds like douchebag let that big brain do too much thinking. We need yes men on the court. Is that “mediocre” guy Nixon tried to put on there still alive?

[fieldmarshaldj]

G. Harrold Carswell ? He died 20 years ago. We should be glad that Carswell didn’t end up on SCOTUS, especially when he would pull a George Michael.